Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet

Photo Web Site Offers a Wall of Shame For Image Thieves 126

Posted by timothy
from the fightin'-words dept.
sandbagger (654585) writes "Stop Stealing Photos is a resource in the pro photographer community for protecting consumers. How? By identifying wannabes who use images in their portfolios that they did not create. In this case, one 'photographer' built a massive social media presence, in many platforms including Linked In where he includes System Architecture in his skills. However, such advocacy web sites are very manual and often run by non-programmers. How can the tech community help consumers in protecting them from phoney on-line presences? Or is this vigilantism?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Photo Web Site Offers a Wall of Shame For Image Thieves

Comments Filter:
  • Webster's (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Oligonicella (659917) on Thursday April 10, 2014 @04:09PM (#46718087)
    vigilante ... noun -s often attributive
    Etymology: Spanish, watchman, guard, from vigilante, adjective, watchful, vigilant, from Latin vigilant-,

    So, yes. But what's your point? The site shows original pictures and then their rip-offs. This is bad how?
  • by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Thursday April 10, 2014 @04:20PM (#46718249) Homepage Journal

    Only thing technology related is the fact that it's a web page.

    And involves cameras.

    And IP theft.

    All of which are regular topics on Slashdot.

    Nobody's putting a gun to your head and forcing you to come here and comment... are they? Blink twice if yes.

  • Re:Photographers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Doug Otto (2821601) on Thursday April 10, 2014 @04:34PM (#46718387)
    I see you have a fancy stove. You must be an excellent chef.
  • Re:lol (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ShieldW0lf (601553) on Thursday April 10, 2014 @04:34PM (#46718395) Journal

    I love it. Two posts down from this at the mo' shows exactly what you're saying.

    Even "freetards" care about people claiming other peoples work as their own. It's not that he stole, it's that he lied.

  • by Doug Otto (2821601) on Thursday April 10, 2014 @04:36PM (#46718427)
    "Collecting" isn't the problem. It's using someone else's copyrighted property to sell one's own services.

    Would you feel differently if someone used your source code as a reference for a contract gig?
  • Re:lol (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jklovanc (1603149) on Thursday April 10, 2014 @04:46PM (#46718549)

    you small brained morons

    Do you understand that insulting people makes them less open to what you are saying? By calling people you have never met "small brained morons" you are actually hurting your cause.

  • Re:lol (Score:5, Insightful)

    by drkim (1559875) on Thursday April 10, 2014 @05:12PM (#46718857)

    There's a difference between copying a photo and claiming to be the original photographer.

    By copying the photo you are getting the benefit of using the photo on your site.

    However, by claiming to BE the photographer, you are defrauding EVERY client who ever books with you from that time on, since they expect you to have the skill to shoot that original photo.

  • Re:lol (Score:4, Insightful)

    by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Thursday April 10, 2014 @05:13PM (#46718877) Homepage Journal

    non-destructive copying of information is not stealing. It may be considered copyright infringement, or espionage, etc., but i will repeat again for you small brained morons: its NOT stealing.

    ProTip - don't call the other side names right out of the gate. Not only does it cause them to instinctually self-insulate against your position, it actually weakens it, as a person with a strong argument doesn't need to engage in ad hominem attacks to make their point. But, I digress.

    That's a real grey area when dealing with digital "stuff." Philosophy time:

    If Person B make a copy of Person A's house key (a type of "information," when you think about it), Person B isn't actually stealing anything; that part comes later...

    Of course, you then have to ask yourself the question, "How did Person B come to be in possession of Person A's keys?" Presuming that Person A did not hand the keys over willingly, it can be assumed that Person B stole them in order to make a copy.

    Now to the digital part: Person A makes his living from taking pictures and posting them online; Person B copies pictures from Person A's website, puts his own name on them, and proceeds to try and profit from Person A's work - has the crime of theft occurred? While the act of copying the file from one server to another may not necessarily construe theft (although there is a strong chance it's a violation of the CFAA [wikipedia.org]), it would be difficult to argue, especially in a court of law, that Person B did not make the copy with criminal intent in mind; namely, the theft of livelihood from Person A.

    Therefore, while the act of copying in itself may not be tantamount to theft, the processes that lead to the copying, as well as the processes that occur afterwards, can often and easily be defined as "stealing."

Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurence of the improbable. - H. L. Mencken

Working...